Is the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention decision on Assange ‘So wrong’?

Journal article

The United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention handed down its decision on Julian Assange on Friday 7 February 2015. It has been met with almost universal ridicule from a line of British officials, legal academics and the press. The decision has been described as ‘ridiculous’ by the UK Foreign Secretary, Phillip Hammond, and former Director of Public Prosecution Ken MacDonald argues that describing Assange’s conditions as ‘arbitrary detention’ is ‘ludicrous’. The press is equally incredulous. The Washington Post has published only the dissenting opinion of the decision, which views Assange’s conditions as ‘self-confinement’ The Political Editor of Die Zeit, argued in the New York Times, that Julian Assange is destroying Wikileaks. Joshua Rozenberg of The Guardian has asked ‘how did the UN get it so wrong on Assange?’. Similarly, Marina Hyde of The Guardian has ridiculed the expertise and competence of the committee, referring to them merely as ‘academics seemingly devoid of judicial expertise’. Given their love affair with Wikileaks, and the freedom of speech it represents, I could dwell for a while on the irony of Guardian journalist ridicule. But for now, I will set that aside. This point of this piece is to correct the imbalance of coverage on this decision, which consistently fails to explain the arguments which persuaded the Working Group in the first place.

Authors: Lazarus, L

• Publication status: Published
• Peer review status: Not peer reviewed
• Publisher: UK Constitutional Law Association
• Journal: UK Constitutional Law Association Blog
• Publication date: 2016-02-01
• Acceptance date: 2016-02-07